Trying to settle a CCJ for mortgage application

Simon_gloster

And ultimately, behind all this, they want a 90% mortgage with a CCJ. Thats the nuts and bolts of it.

As Holly says, let us know the outcome as I think broker and especially borrower will sweat like f*// for a few weeks if someone is prepared to look at it.

I cant scroll back, but am I under the impression that OP has offered on a property without at least getting an aip? Anyone else think this is the wrong way to do it and they now find themselves in a bit of a pickle?

JimmyTheWig

holly_hobby wrote: »

This of course, does not alter the fact that the individual admits they failed to repay their solicitors bill, which they knew was due.

I got the impression that they didn't think they had to pay this bill.

Surely there's a chance that the firm made a mistake?

kingstreet

Simon_gloster wrote: »

And ultimately, behind all this, they want a 90% mortgage with a CCJ. Thats the nuts and bolts of it.

As Holly says, let us know the outcome as I think broker and especially borrower will sweat like f*// for a few weeks if someone is prepared to look at it.

I cant scroll back, but am I under the impression that OP has offered on a property without at least getting an aip? Anyone else think this is the wrong way to do it and they now find themselves in a bit of a pickle?

The "adviser" has them running around trying to get this thing satisfied, as if a certificate of satisfaction is suddenly going to open loads of doors.

There will be few, if any, willing to lend at 90% and I suspect once they get the certificate, they will then be told they need to get it marked as satisfied on the system before it can be looked at by an un-named lender.

Agree totally with your comment about dealing with such issues BEFORE looking at property, never mind offering on one.

Conrad

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I got the impression that they didn't think they had to pay this bill.

Surely there's a chance that the firm made a mistake?

In my 20 years, almost everyone I've met with a ccj makes the same defence - that they didn't know about the debt / had moved to a new address etc.

The reason these excuses never hold water is that a contract is a contract. The onus is on the buyer to understand the terms therein. It is not for a provider to later have to go to measures 'just in case' the buyer did not understand / moved to a new address.

Such a defence is weak and akin to saying 'I didn't know the speed limit, the signs aren't clear'. The onus is on the user of roads to be aware of driving rules. The onus is on the user of a service to know the contract rules they agreed to.

I can't see a 90% deal being offered as the time to get round to addressing the debt has been so long which any lender will take as disorganisation / lack of forethought.

holly_hobby

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I got the impression that they didn't think they had to pay this bill.

Surely there's a chance that the firm made a mistake?

Depding on how far down the road he was, there would be local searches and BO searches to be paid for, in addition to any correspondence or telephone calls the conveyencer made in connection with the sale, which are generally charged in addition to disbursements.

Obv we don't know how far down the line this went, if he just instructed them, and farily soon afterwards withdrew from the purchase i.e before any conveyencing was actually carried out, then they may be an arguement as to why he thought no fees had been incurred. If however he was aware that the conveyencer had commenced with the searches etc, then his argument will be somewhat weakened - even if he didn't receive any corres. in connection with this i.e he had moved without notifying the creditor - he still has full liability for this debt.

I do get the impression that it wasn't settled at the time, as the indvidual thought that as the pch didn't complete, why should he pay for any conveyencing, which is why they have ended up where they are today ... but I may be wrong. Of course just because a purchase or sale doesn't complete, does not mean that professional fees haven't been incurred in the meantime.

I also think, and said earlier, that at 90% - and moreover the reason for the CCJ rather than the amount, they will struggle, and whilst their adviser apparently believes this case will be a walk in the park, even with a 90% LTV, I do feel somewhat different.

However .... I would be genuinely happy for the OP if this is the case ... but we'll see what transpires when they actually go back to this adviser clutching their cert of satisfaction ...

Hope this helps

Holly

Holly

JimmyTheWig

Ok, re-reading the OP it isn't as clear as I thought as to whether he was aware he had to pay or not. Previously I thought this all came out of the blue, but reading it again it sounds more like he tried to get out of paying for work done on his behalf on a technicality.

In which case presumably the best way to proceed, in any event, would be to settle the CCJ. Whether that will be enough to get a mortgage or not I don't know.

holly_hobby

Yep, my original post was to satisfy the CCJ, although the lender will still want to know the reason behind it, and why it took 5 yrs to settle i.e just in time to apply for a mge ... which is considered a black mark really i.e they have only settled it not out of any kind of moral responsibility, but solely to secure a mortgage ....

Of course the reason he will give for delayed satisfactino is that he was simply "unaware of it until recently", however this may not wash with the lender (especially at 90%). What would aid the case would be (other than this CCJ) an otherwise impecible credit record on both of them, and a broker being able to clevely present this to satisfy the UWs that the applicant isn't someone who, when he feels like it, opts not to repay creditors ... that will be trick !! (obv a much lower LTV would also favour them .... or wait until next yr, when the satisfied judgement will have expired (and unable to be re-registered by the creditor) to submit an application).

Holly

JimmyTheWig

Would an unsuccessful application now cause any particular problems with an application in a year's time? Obviously it will log a credit search, but I wouldn't have thought that would play a big part a year later.

In other words, I'm saying any reason not to pay off the CCJ now and apply.

kingstreet

A single search wouldn't be an issue, but it's likely at least one has already been done to bring the issue of the judgment to light.

As I said earlier, getting the certificate of satisfaction is only the first step. A lender will want to see it showing as satisfied on the system and I suspect that will be the next reason given for being unable to apply for a mortgage just yet.

TBH if this was my case I would suggest they withdraw their offer until such times as we can get the CCJ satisfied, marked as satisfied and to check there are no other nasties lurking on either of the credit files. I'd then try to place the case and if I was able to do so, I'd then suggest they submit an offer for a property.

holly_hobby

In essence no .... BUT its the 90% coupled with a satisfied CCJ for (undisputed) professional costs that I feel may be the killer here.

If they apply now (ie once satisfied and marked as satisfied) and its declined (and I would expect the adviser to have obtained an AIP/DIP on this with an UW before submission ..)

There shouldn't be an issue in applying next yr when the CCJ has expired (and by expired I mean the satisfied CCJ has expired) - I would be surprised if a lender asks for details why 12 mths or so ago, they applied for a mge that didn't complete - its normally when the previous app(s) were in the immediate months, or weeks leading upto the submission to themselves that rings alarm bells - and smell of tramping the case round.

By that time they may have an increased deposit, or the 90% LTV on their now cleaned up credit file, won't be an issue (subject of course to other paramaters such as status/max ltv for product chosen etc).

Hope this helps

Holly